Every experienced outdoor photographer I have ever been with (the late Galen Rowell was a friend) used a protective lens filter (UV, other) to protect the soft lens glass & coatings from dirt, water, anything else. The lens filter could be easily cleaned (years ago we used Kodak lens cleaning papers, now it is microfiber cloths)without ever possibly damaging the lens and its coatings. I ran lens filter tests years ago using monochromatic lens beams when I had access to an optical bench with meters: the high quality B+W, Hoya, Nikon, Canon, Heliopan were tested. As I recall, the coated ( anti-reflection coated) UV filters all had superb resolution, had slight(1.5% or less)light loss, were not a problem. The polarizing filters could not be evaluated due to their immense variation. The Tiffen filter had greater than 2% light loss, also had greater resolution loss, and was apparently made of glass with greater impurities. I use a lens cap(as suggested by others)and a protective UV filter, since my lens has greater value than $15. filter. I have never damaged a lens.

Perfectly stated. It’s downright goofy. It’s all preference amongst a bunch of amateur (of which I am one) photographers. Over trivial matters.
Filter, no filter. Raw vs jpeg. LR vs what ever. How many is us operate at the edge of performance that any of this matters? One look at the gallery and who could argue many?

This is an example of a relatively unmoderated site. It allows a certain culture to exist which often is not positive. The attic should not even exist. But moderation takes time and efforts.

I belong to a camera club with a few very high end photographers. National if not world class. Not once have any of our programs discussed filters, canon v Sony v Nikon.